Are you in favor of drug testing in Sprint Car racing? Why/Why not? Do you think there is a need for it in Sprint Car racing? Meaning, do you think there is a problem? What do you think the penalty should be for someone that comes back with a positive test?

Here's a quick look at what some of those message board commenters had to say (Note: comments have been edited for clarity and grammar):

Paintboss: Drugs are a problem in the United Staes, period! And I'm sure some of it filters into Sprint Car Racing. ... If it is obvious a driver is jacked-up on drugs or alcohol then it should be dealt with first by the law. I personally don't think don't believe there is enough there to justify it.

Kossuth: In favor? Yes. I would hate for something like another incident to occur where somebody gets hurt or killed. The sport is dangerous enough.

Think there is a need? Yes. One fatality/major injury that occurs due to somebody being high is too many. The sport doesn't need the black eye. It's one thing if it's a true accident, another if said person is high.

Penalty. 30 day suspension for the first infraction Season-long ban for the second time. Third time permanent ban.

Oswald: People are hurt and killed every day by drivers that are drunk or on drugs on the highways of our country! Should we all be drug tested regularly in order to have a driver's license?

With money being tight for promoters, track owners and a lot of race teams perhaps a good question would be who is going to pay for the testing if it is done? Labs do not do blood or [urine] tests for free. It is easy to say testing is needed but someone needs to figure out where the money to do it is going to come from first.

How much would it cost Knoxville Raceway to test 80 drivers? Or say all drivers must bring a clean test with them to be allowed to race? Then how do you know no cheating was done? NFL players have used masking agents to pass blood tests.

Before I could say yes, it should be done, I would need to know how it would be done. Random? Every driver times the number of times per season? Just [World of Outlaws] drivers or all that race with them? All drivers at the major sprint car tracks and series? Draw blood or take a [urine] sample at the track? Drivers required to have it done on their own by a doctor and lab chosen by the track or sanctioning body?

Once you say Sprint Car racers need to be drug tested there are a whole lot of other questions to be answered, too!

IBRACN: I'm in favor of mandatory drug testing in sprint car racing. Most, if not all of the WoO drivers want it and think it is time.

The penalty could be from one race to months depending on the policy set up. An example: First offense, weekly testing and as long as the numbers continue to decrease, all is ok. Seek a drug counseler for help, short suspension. Second offense, longer suspension, more drug counseling. Third offense, longer suspension, if not permanent. Kind of like a three strike policy similar to NASCAR.

It doesn't cost as much as one might think. It costs $28 to test for all street and synthetic drugs. You don't have to test everyone every night. What one could do is test 4-8 people each night of racing. Maybe three drivers and three crew members, or three local drivers and three WoO (replace organization name here) each night. That way it minimizes cost to the track/organization and deters every driver from taking drugs on the chance they might be tested. Cost would be anywhere from $125 to $250 each night of racing, depending on how many people you would want to test. Now, I'm aware some things may need to be tweaked but this plan could/would work at minimal expense to the track/organization.

Dave Wolfe: I'll go on record to say it's a bad idea. Furthermore, I'm alarmed and intrigued that anyone would consider it a viable concept and push for the idea. As racing is a hobby for most competitors, not many will stand for such a nuisance and take their racing to a venue which is less intrusive on their personal lives.

There's already too much damn regulation in this world. No need for more.

brookstd: I like the idea of drug testing. But make no mistake it will reduce car counts. I myself am in favor. To reduce the cost to promoters [they should] random test. Maybe five to 10 percent of the drivers each week. I would also be in favor of alcohol-blood-level testing at sign-in. Results are fast. If a driver is under the influence then he don't race. I remember in the day alcohol was a big problem on the local dirt tracks. As we know, drugs and alcohol are a problem on the roads. But what's amazing is texting and cell phones have caught up to drunk drivers. They scare me worse. With alcohol it occurs in the evenings and early hours. With texting it's 24/7. So we have to eliminate texting while racing as well.

SamHerring14: Australia already does it on a weekly basis. It's not big of a deal and is cheap. A lot cheaper than a lawsuit when someone does damage under the influence of drugs.

dirtdevil: As a fan and driver I wouldn't have a problem with the added cost for random testing. A crew member of mine is a medical technologist. To my understanding, tests utilized to decipher the common drugs used today are fairly inexpensive. Mind you, in a lab there are many, many other tests that are complex and expensive, the equipment used makes many of these [costly so] only the insured can afford [them]. Anyhow, we're racing $20-$60k machines. Sure, incidents do happen and I would rather leave incidents to strong competition and fate, not mind and reflex-altering poor decisions. Unfortunately, the media has gotten its hands in our sport in a direction we wish would be reversed. All the negatives have been brought forth

Nothing has changed in this sport; it's still dangerous, but a mind-altering drug that takes one's motives and reactions to its limits is not necessary when the heat of the moment needs to have strong minds and well-thought behavior. Random testing may not catch everyone. The idea is it's present and the [punishment] to not abiding by it. You cant control everything, but putting a cap on the issue may lessen the chances of its ugly facts of showing up soon again.

StaggerLee: Drug testing is only needed if a problem exists. Are those in favor of drug testing saying that they know for sure drugs are an issue among Sprint Car drivers? Or is this just an assumption based on a couple bad apples? When was the last time drugs were an issue in a Sprint Car racing incident at the track? ...

Of all of the recent horrible on track fatalities ... have drugs been an issue with any of them? Don't try to fix something that's not broken. Unless someone is visibly intoxicated or someone witnesses them drinking or using in the pits before a race, I think drug testing is an invasion of privacy and should be kept out of Sprint Car racing.

henry chinaski: Enough already with all this stupid drug testing talk. Sprint car racing is fine as it is. We don't need more regulations in this sport!

Chance2195: Drug testing only takes money out of racing and puts [it] in the hands of the testing and rehab companies. The tests are easily beaten and only show past use. The war on drugs has killed millions and only serves to keep prices high for the dealers benefit. Keep drug testing out of racing. Racers will take care of the situation on their own. Someone on Xanax, Phenobarbital and Oxycontin will pass the test as long as they have prescriptions. Are they safer than a driver that smoked pot 45 days ago and will fail the test?

Hawker: There are drug users in every walk of life and every occupation and testing won't change that. Would it make the sport safer? I doubt it. I've worked in aviation for well over 20 years and I've been [urinating] in a cup, giving saliva and even an inpromptu "hair cut" over the years, so I am just providing clarification as I know it as a former Union Steward where I had to represent workers who failed random drug and alcohol tests and as a manager who has had to have the tests administered randomly or after a workplace injury.

nick14: One of the big issues I think with this topic is what about the drivers that are responsible and are respectful of their fellow competitors by not being under the influence of any type of drugs or alcohol. People can argue all they want about what the effects drugs have on people but the fact remains that they do have an effect. They can test or they can not test, doesn't really matter to me as i have no dog in the fight (not an owner or driver or promoter), they are the ones who will decide. A day will come though unfortunately where an accident will happen involving a driver who is under the influence and a driver who is not and the driver who is not will be injured and maybe even worse sad to say. When that happens I'm sure ESPN will be all over it, and this board will light up about opinions and it will be yet another black eye on this sport that we all love. Can drug testing prevent this? Doubtful and unlikely but at least the major media cant say that the sport did not try. Nothing can be done to prevent every tragedy from happening, but the big people involved have to decide is the cost worth the reward.

hatesfenders: I have to take randoms where I work and the cheap tests have up to a five percent false positive rate. The HR department makes the worker aware of this and has the option to go straight to the lab for a blood draw in the event of a positive test. Are there going to be people certified to give these drug tests? Is the driver going to have the option to go straight to a lab in case of a false positive to clear his reputation (which will require two samples, and still drive that night)? What about prescriptions drugs? There are many that say don't operate vehicles or machines but they are not covered on a cheap test. What about alcohol? Driving with a hangover is as dangerous as being under the influence. Maybe a 36-hour rule restraining from alcohol? What about people in the stands who consume beer? They may drive home under the influence, which put women and children at risk, too. Maybe we should just shut everything down, have no races and sit at home in a room and be safe. Then we don't need to worry about those pesky rights.

keyboard jockey: As a guy that has driven Sprint Cars I can't come up with a reason NOT to test people.

Cost? These are sprint cars, there is always cost involved. Can you honestly tell me a guy who spends $6,000 (scraping the bottom of the barrel) to put a motor together can't come up with a few extra bucks to make sure everyone is safe? That a guy that spends $50,000 on a nice new crisp affordable ASCS motor can't come up with a few extra bucks? Come on!

Privacy? You want to race Sprint Cars and do drugs? Pick one or the other. If you do both you should get outed and people should know.

If you are going to put in the time to race Sprint Cars, put an extra couple minutes in to be safe. If you can't afford that time, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them on the race track. Be safe or don't race.

If you strap in to a 950HP Sprint Car, or any race car you owe it to your competitors, crew, other crews and fans to prove that you yourself are clean and can accept the task of racing.

hotlap74: I'm heavily involved in Sprint Car racing and have a drug testing business as well. Our primary business is acting as a third-party administrator to the transportation industry to insure our customers remain in compliance with federal drug testing rules and regulations.

I have been approached by a couple different promoters/track owners regarding implementing a program and have since put a great deal of thought in how it could be done effectively and affordably based on my knowledge of being on both sides of the fence.

Random testing would be the best deterrent as any given driver could be selected for testing each and every time they race. Random selections could be accomplished fairly by grouping drivers in a consortium from which to be selected. Consortium pools could consist of multiple tracks, and/or series, or even based on multiple tracks within a time zone. The pool(s) could be easily created from drivers registered through race monitor. Selections would be computer generated at a specified percentage each night of racing. Some tracks may not have any, or very few drivers selected at an event, as other may have multiple selected. The cost would be a flat fee based on participation and not the number of test conducted.

I think the most effective way to complete the random testing would be to notify the selected driver at the completion of the event and not before. There are way too many variables to try and accomplish testing during a race. If a driver is exhibiting signs of substance abuse or misuse of alcohol prior to the race, the promoter could then request a reasonable cause test and pull the driver from competition should the test(s) show "NOT NEGATIVE".

As far as consequences, I think it would be appropriate to follow DOT guidelines. The driver would not be eligible to participate in future events until being cleared by an approved Substance Abuse and Professional and subject to follow-up testing (all at the cost of the driver).

RazzBarlow7: I agree that there is a need for it. Tyler Walker is a prime example. Anyone who spent any time watching his antics would have little doubt that he was at the track under the influence more than once.

Is it cost prohibitive? Maybe. Does it matter? It shouldn't. The price of tragedy is much higher.

You don't have to test every driver. Have a "random" test. Have people pea-pick, just like for a qualifying spot. If you pick the right (or wrong) token, you get to do the testing. Even if you don't test the offender, the threat of possibly getting tested would help to curb the abusers.

Punishments should be harsh. There's no place for drugs or alcohol in a race driver's system, in my opinion. If you need more than the high of high-speed competition, the sport doesn't need you.